>Raveendra Hegde
cited the report at http:
//www.mier.com/reports/cisco/Cisco12400JuniperM160.pdf.
Let's say this report, which was commissioned by Cisco, is the most
accurate thing in the world. And your point is?
Routers, especially routers in the class of the GSR and M160, are
complex systems. There is no one number that makes one better than
another in all applications -- there are a series of factors to be
considered.
Let's put it this way -- I'm actively cooperating in IETF documents
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-conterm-00.txt and
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-bgpbas-00.txt ,
which are coauthored by Nortel, Cisco, Juniper, and Nexthop -- and
getting feedback from other vendors and users -- just to BEGIN to pin
down how to measure the convergence behavior of a BGP router. I
assure you that the result of this effort won't be a single number.
Nor will forwarding performance (e.g., RFC 2544) produce a single
number, much less considering QoS enforcement, filtering, etc.
Just throwing out comments about "latency" as if it is the be-all
end-all doesn't clarify much. The Mier and Lightreading reports
dealt with convergence only with respect to a full table -- what you
typically see at cold start. With a router of carrier-class
reliability, how relatively important is the time to initialize the
whole table, compared to the performance of the constant adding and
dropping of routes that goes on constantly?
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=14557&t=14543
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
